WPCG LA* e5o0R/-_nWT~mp:AkEl4܆$qE U-j1# 9igo&M1rDkI*3,F"۫ΨZF 0#HZf 3-amͅ,qb 0U 0  0 0 0s 0, 0 0! 03" 0" 0# 0j$ 0% 0% 0q& 0' 0' 0B( 0( 0) 0_* 0+ 0+ 0], 0, 0- 0%. 0. 0a/ 00 0>0 01 02 02 03 04 05 0}6 077 02 8 0;8 0:79 0Yq9 0_9 0 ): 03; 0< B*> D/> D+? 0?? D/EA 0tA 06BB 0xB 0uC D5C B*D 0:GD 0^D 0<D 1eEU6EU*E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE^ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 0uEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ASsFF 0DGHP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS., XYD[\U]E^_D`aDb(A Z(Times New Roman (O$mailto:jboc@fdap.org(;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#*~ZZ.GoudyHandtooled BT (F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#Wd0:i+003|xbU($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  y?BGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List\  `&Times New Roman- -*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7N(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?]%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7O(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dM)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7Q(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?]%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7O(X75+ ` hp x 5  M)2dxd0KS.SampleK\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS(M3$ !wXXUSUS.,  WWWW)!dxdx d42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  '()*+,-. 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`ArialSDU_29V81 (M3$ !wXXUSUS.,  UVE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  !XXUSUS.,  _8dd8  * LJ*MJLBLOCKBUSTERS f   FROMTHEBENCH!#LJM#   \  Crawford!_Blakely_!andmuchmore!    L JJLuq  JL   TheU.S.SupremeCourts20032004Term#L J uq# JL  h  #L Jڐ#7   l JL#L J l #  u JL#L Ju[# JLPreparedbyJ.BradleyOConnell    L StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject#L JО#u JL 4  4 O  5  jboc@fdap.org#L Jun# l JL 6O  7  X  #L J l#u JLSept.24,2004#L Ju#        JL uCONFRONTATIONCLAUSE&HEARSAY 2 #uw#  (?By3 " 3"   3n2?B3  0    Crawfordv.Washington(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.1354. 򀀀 SupremeCourt D  scrapsOhiov.Roberts indiciaofreliabilitytestforconfrontationclauseanalysisof H! outofcourt testimonialstatementsnotcomingwithina firmlyrootedhearsay H" exception.Atleastfor testimonialstatements,theopportunityforcross H# examinationistheconstitutionallyprescribedmethodofassuringthereliabilityof H$ thefactfindingprocess.Themajority(ledbyJusticeScalia)eschewsRoberts H% emphasison amorphousnotionsofreliabilityandlamentsthatsomelowercourts H&  haveadmitted untestedtestimonialstatementsbybasingfindingsofreliabilityon H'!  theveryfactorsthatmakethestatementstestimonial,suchasawitnessmakingthe H(" statement tothepolicewhileincustodyonpendingcharges(supposedlymakingthe H)# statementcontrarytohis penalinterest).TheCourtreturnsto theFramers H*$ understanding:Testimonialstatementsofwitnessesabsentfromtrialhavebeen H+% admittedonlywherethedeclarantisunavailable,andonlywherethedefendanthas H,& hadaprioropportunitytocrossexamine.Ԁ#ö # 3n݌#H-'(#(# #Ќ  _0  TheCourt _leave[s_]foranotherdayanyefforttospelloutacomprehensivedefinition  oftestimonial.Buttheconceptisnotlimitedtosworntestimonyincourt.The  Courtfindsthattheaccusatorystatementsmadeduringapoliceinterrogation  ( knowinglygiveninresponsetostructuredpolicequestioning)inCrawforditself   fallsquarelywithinthatclass.Otherexamplesof testimonialstatementsinclude  affidavitsand similarpretrialstatementsthat_declarants_Ԁwouldreasonablyexpectto   beused_prosecutorially_,plea_allocutions_Ԁshowing% ^ #Ó#%^theexistenceofaconspiracy,and   grandjurytestimony,expartetestimony,orothertestimonywhichthecurrent   # #defendanthadnoopportunitytocrossexamine. (#(# 0  AsanumberofCaliforniaopinionshavealreadyfound,Crawfordalmostcertainly   invalidatesanumberofrecentlymintedhearsayexceptionswhichhadallowed   admissionofvariousoutofcourtstatementstoinvestigators(sometimesconditioned   uponRobertslikefindingsof reliability).(E.g.,_Evid_.Code###*#Ԁ1350[witness   tapedorwrittenstatementtolawenforcementofficialwheredefendantcausedthat  witnessunavailabilityattrial],1360[hearsaystatementofchildvictimofabuseor  neglect],1370[hearsaystatementofunavailablewitnessdescribinginflictionorthreat  ofphysicalinjury],1380[videotapedstatementofunavailablevictimofelderabuse];  see,e.g.,Peoplev._Pirwani_(2004)119_Cal.App_.4th#Ò#Ԁ717[findingelderlyvictims  statementtopolicewas testimonialanditsadmissionunder#y#Ԁ1380violated  confrontationclause].)(#(# 0  AlthoughtheprimaryeffectofCrawfordisasignificantexpansionofconfrontation  rights,theopiniondoesnotbodewellforconfrontationclauseanalysisofoutofcourt  statementswhicharenotdeemed testimonial(suchasputative spontaneous  statements,coconspiratorstatementsinfurtheranceoftheconspiracy,orother  extrajudicialstatementsnotmadetoinvestigatorsoraspartofjudicialprocess)The  opinionraisesthepossibilitythat nontestimonialextrajudicialstatementsmaynot  besubjecttotheconfrontationclauseatallandthatwhateverreliabilityconcernsthey   poseshouldbelefttohearsaylaw.( Anoffhand,overheardremarkmightbe ! unreliableevidenceandthusagoodcandidateforexclusionunderhearsayrules,but " itbearslittleresemblancetothecivillawabusestheConfrontationClausetargeted.) # However,sinceCrawfordinvolved testimonialstatementsanddidnotresolvethe $  fateof nontestimonialones,atleastforthetimebeingthelatterstatementsshould %!! stillbereviewedundertheOhiov.Robertsframework!thatis,ifthestatementis &""  testimonialanddoesnotcomewithinafirmlyestablishedhearsayexception,it '## shouldonlybeadmissibleifaccompaniedbyparticularizedguaranteesof ($$ trustworthiness.(SeePeoplev.#×#ԀCervantes(2004)118_Cal.App_.4th##Ԁ162.)0 (#(#)%% (# (#  +'' u _APPRENDI_& RIGHTTOJURYTRIAL    (?Byy " 3"   3!2?B3  0    uBlakelyv.Washington(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2531.Landmarkextension * ofApprendiv.NewJerseytojudicialfindingof aggravatingfactsnecessaryto < supportsentenceabove standardrangeforoffenseunderWashingtonssentencing < guidelines.AlthoughBlakelyssentenceof90monthswasbelowtheabsolute  < maximumof10yearsfora classBfelony,itwasabovethepresumptive standard  < rangeof4953months.Inordertoimposeasentencegreaterthanthestandard  < range,thejudgewasrequiredtofindoneormoreaggravatingfactors(inthiscase,  <  deliberatecruelty)beyondtheminimumstatutoryelementsofthecrime.Under  <  SupremeCourtsopinion,wherestatelawestablishesapresumptivesentencefora <  particularoffenseandauthorizesagreatertermonlyifcertainadditionalfactsare <  found(beyondthoseinherentinthepleaorjuryverdict),theSixthAmendment <  entitlesthedefendanttojurydeterminationofthoseadditionalfactsbyproofbeyond <  areasonabledoubt.#%#Ԁ{ThesematerialsontheSupremeCourttermwillnotprovide < anyextendeddiscussionofBlakely,sinceBlakelysapplicationtoCalifornias < DeterminateSentencingLawwillbethesubjectofaseparatetalkandseparate < materialsduringtheOct.2004CACJseminar.} 3!!݌<(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3?)2?B3  0    SeealsoSchirov.Summerlin(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2519(Ringv.Arizona < notretroactiveonfederalhabeasreview),discussedunder HABEASCORPUS. 3?)l)݌<(#(# Ќ  #u*"# SEARCHANDSEIZURE  N u  Investigation&detentions  b   (?Byy " 3"   3+2?B3  0    Hiibelv.SixthJudicialDist.CourtofNevada(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2451. ` SupremeCourtupholdsa stopandidentifystatute,requiringasuspectwhohas  ` beenvalidlydetainedtoidentifyhimself. TheprinciplesofTerrypermitaStateto !` requireasuspecttodisclosehisnameinthecourseofaTerrystop.Majority "` emphasizesthatthestatuteonlyrequiredanindividualtorespondtoarequestfor #` identificationanddidnotrequirehimtoansweranyotherpolicequestions.Majority $` alsorejectsa5thAmendmentselfincriminationchallengebecause,under %`  circumstancesofthecase,disclosureofthesuspectsnamewouldhaveno &`!! incriminatingeffect.Butcourtleavesopenpossibilitythat,undersomeother '`"" circumstances,disclosureofonesnamecouldprovide alinkinthechainof (`## evidenceincriminatingsomeoneinanoffenseandrunafoulofthe5thAmendment. 3+,݌)`$$(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3#12?B3  0    Illinoisv.Lidster(2003)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.885.SupremeCourtupholdsan +`&&  informationseekingroadblock,setuptoaskmotoristsforanyinformationabout ,`'' afatalhitandrunaccident.Courtdistinguishesthisroadblock,whichwastailored  toobtaininformationaboutaspecificrecentcrimeatthatlocation,fromthemore  generaldruginterdictionroadblocksfoundunconstitutionalinCityofIndianapolis  v.Edmond(2000)531U.S.32. 3#1P1݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   342?B3  0    UnitedStatesv.FloresMontano(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.1582.󀀀Building   uponearlierrulingsthatnoparticularizedsuspicionisrequiredforabordersearch   ofavehicle,SupremeCourtholdsthatborderagentsmaydisassembleportionsofa   vehicleinthecourseofsuchasearch.(InFloresMontano,theagentsremovedand   disassembledthefueltankofatruck.) 34@4݌ (#(# Ќ  0  Arrests  (#(# " 3"   362?B3  0    Marylandv.Pringle(2003)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.795.Whereevidenceofacrime   isfoundinacarandeachoccupantdeniesanyconnectiontoit,probablecausemay   existtoarrestalltheoccupants.Under totalityofcircumstancestest,thequantity  ofdrugsfoundinrearseatarmrestandcashfoundinglovecompartmentsuggested  a commonenterpriseandweresufficienttosupportprobablecausetoarrestall3  occupants. 367݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   392?B3  0    Thorntonv.UnitedStates(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2127.LegalityofaBelton  searchofavehicleincidenttocustodialarrestofanoccupantor recentoccupant  doesntdependonwhetherthesuspectwasstillinthevehicleatthemomentthe  police initiatedcontact.Beltonconcernsofpolicesafetyandpotentialdestruction  ofevidenceapplywheneverpolicearrestsomeoneinornexttoavehicle,regardless  ofexacttimingof contactinitiation.Interestingly,inadditiontothedissenters  (Stevens&Souter),severaloftheconcurringjustices(Scalia,Ginsburg&OConnor)  expressedawillingnesstoreconsiderBeltons brightlinerule.Inparticular,Justice  ScaliawouldreturnBeltonssafetyandevidencedestructionrationaletoitsrootsin   Chimelv.Californiaandfocusonwhethertheinteriorofthecarwastrulywithinthe ! arresteesreach(whichisrarelythecaseifthearresteehasalreadybeenhandcuffed " andrestrainedinapolicecar).ButScaliawouldalsoexpandincidenttoarrestauto # searchesinotherinstancesbyallowingasearchwheretherewasareasonable $  expectationevidencerelevanttothearrestoffensewouldbefoundinthecar(suchas % ! wheredrugshadalreadybeenfoundonthedefendantspersonduringapatdown &!" search).( IfBeltonsearchesarejustifiable,itisnotbecausethearresteemightgrab '"# aweaponorevidentiaryitemfromhiscar,butsimplybecausethecarmightcontain (#$ evidencerelevanttothecrimeforwhichhewasarrested.) 399݌)$%(#(# Ќ   +&' 0  Warrants (#(# " 3"   3jB2?B3  0    Grohv.Ramirez(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.1284.Theonenoteworthy4th  AmendmentvictorythisTermconcernedtheparticularityrequirement.Awarrant  whichcompletelyomittedalistoftheitemstobeseizedwas faciallyinvalid.The  warrantaffidavitdidlisttheitemssought,butthatlistingcouldntcurethedefect   becausethewarrantitselfneitherattachedtheaffidavitnorincorporateditby   reference.Therequirementthatthewarrantidentifytheitemstobeseizedreflects   theprinciplethattheissuingmagistratemustauthorizethescopeofthesearch;it   cannotsimplybelefttopolicediscretion.Also, themerefactthattheMagistrate    issuedawarrantdoesnotnecessarilyestablishthatheagreedthatthescopeofthe   searchshouldbeasbroadastheaffiant'srequest.(Notethattheissueherearosein   acivilrightssuit,ratherthanonasuppressionmotion.) 3jBB݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3G2?B3  0    UnitedStatesv.Banks(2003)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.521.Noknocknotice   violationwherepolicewaited1520secondsafterknockingandannouncingtheir  presencebeforeforciblyenteringthehouse.(Banksisunlikelytohavemuch  significanteffectuponCaliforniaknocknoticepracticebecauseseveralCalifornia  decisionshaveupheldentriesafterevenshorterwaits.) 3GG݌(#(# Ќ  #u +# CONFESSIONS   u0  5thAmen./Miranda $(#(# " 3"   3J2?B3  0    Missouriv.Seibert(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2601.SupremeCourtcondemns "  questionfirst,warnlaterpolicetacticoffirstquestioninganarresteewithout " Mirandawarnings,obtainingaconfession,andthen,shortlylater,givingMiranda " advisementsandelicitinganewconfessioncoveringthesamegroundastheearlier " illegallyobtainedone.Underthecircumstances,theinterveningdeliveryofMiranda  " warningswasnotsufficienttorenderthesecondconfessionadmissibleunderOregon !" v.Elstad(1985)470U.S.298:Therewasonlyashortintervalbetweenthe "" interrogations,therewas continuityofpolicepersonnel,andpoliceexploitedthe #" earlierillegalitythroughoutthesecondinterrogationbymaking referencesbackto $"  thedetailsofthefirstconfession.Ineffect,policetreatedthesecondroundof %"!! interrogationasacontinuationofthefirst.Althoughthepreciseissueswere &""" different,SeibertissimilartotheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsdecisionlastyearin '"## Peoplev.Neal(2003)31Cal.4th63#MP#,whichalsoinvolvedintentionalMiranda ("$$ violationssanctionedbypolicedepartmentpoliciesandtraining,whichencouraged )"%% officerstoconductinterrogations outsideMiranda. 3J K݌*"&&(#(# Ќ   +"'' " 3"   3R2?B3  0    UnitedStatesv.Patane(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2620.Mirandaviolation  (failuretoprovidewarnings)doesnotrequiresuppressionofnontestimonialphysical  evidencederivedfromtheillegallyobtained(but voluntary)confession. 3R>R݌(#(# Ќ  " 3 "   3S2?B3  0    Yarboroughv.Alvarado(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2140.ReversalofaNinth  CircuitdecisiongrantinghabeasrelieftoaCaliforniadefendant.NinthCircuithad   foundCaliforniacourtsunreasonableinfailingtoweigha17yearoldsuspects age   andinexperienceindeterminingwhetherhewasin custodyforMirandapurposes.   SupremeCourtholdsthatNinthCircuitfailedtogivesufficientdeferenceto   CaliforniacourtsunderAEDPAstandardofreview.Therewasno clearly   establishedrulethatageandinexperiencearerelevanttoMirandacustody.Majority   goesontoholdthatconsiderationofasuspects inexperiencewithlawenforcement   wasinconsistentwith objectivetestforMirandacustodyandthereforewas    impropernotonlyunderthedeferentialstandardof[AEDPA],butalsoasadenovo   matter.Majoritydoesnotruleoutpossibleproprietyofconsideringsuspectsage,  butthestatecourtsfailuretodosocouldnotsupporthabeasreliefundertheAEDPA  standard. Ouropinions...havenotmentionedthesuspectsage,muchlessmandated  itsconsideration. 3S!T݌(#(# Ќ  RR0  6thAmen./Massiah (#(# " 3 "   3Z2?B3  0    Fellersv.UnitedStates(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.1019.SupremeCourt  emphasizesthatthe6thAmendment/Massiahlimitationsonelicitinginformationfrom  achargeddefendant,afterattachmentoftherighttocounsel,aremorestrictthanthe  5thAmendment/Mirandarules.Any deliberateelicitationofincriminating  statementsfromachargedsuspectviolatesMassiahevenifthepoliceconductdoes  notqualifyas interrogationforMirandapurposes.(Policearrestedindicted  defendantathishomeandtoldhimtheywerethereto discusshisinvolvementin  drugdistribution.WithoutgivingMirandaadvisements,policementionednamesof   otherpeoplelistedintheindictment,anddefendantadmittedusingdrugswiththem. ! Eventhoughpolicestatementsdidnttakeformofquestionslikelytoeliciting " incriminatingresponseunderMiranda interrogationtest(RhodeIslandv.Innis), # theyclearlymettheMassiah deliberateelicitationstandard.) 3ZZ݌$ (#(# Ќ  #unJ#BRADY&DISCOVERY  &!" u" 3 "   3`2?B3  0    Banksv.Dretke(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.1256.ReversalofTexasdeath ($$ penaltyduetoBradyerrorinvolvingoneoftheprosecutionskeypenaltyphase )%% witnesses(Farr).(Districtcourthadgrantedhabeasreliefastothedeathsentence, *&& butFifthCircuithadreversedthatdecisioninanunpublishedpercuriamopinion.) +'' TheprosecutionhadsuppressedevidencethatFarrwasapaidpoliceinformantand  hadagreedtoassistwiththemurderinvestigationoutoffearthedetectivewould  arresthimondrugcharges.But theStateremainedsilentasFarrtwice perjured  himselfattrialanddeniedgivingpreviousstatementstothedetective.The  suppressedevidenceofFarrsinformantstatuswas materialforBradypurposes.  FarrstestimonyaboutBanksallegedtriptoobtainagunandplanstocommit   burglariesandrobberieswasthe centerpieceofprosecutionspenaltyphasetheory   thatBanks(whohadnopriorcriminalrecord)had propensitytocommitviolent   offenses.(See HABEASCORPUS,infra,fordiscussionofBanksholdingthat   statescontinuingpostconvictionsuppressionoftheinformationexcusedthefailure   topresentthisevidenceinthestatepostconvictionpetition.) 3` a݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3 "   3g2?B3  0    Illinoisv.Fisher(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.1200.Summaryreversalofan   Illinoisappellatedecision,whichhadordereddismissalofcriminalcharges because   thepolice,actingingoodfaithandaccordingtonormalpoliceprocedures,destroyed  evidencethat[Fisher]hadrequestedmorethan10yearsearlierinadiscovery  motion.FourpolicelabtestsindicatedthesubstanceseizedfromFisherwas  cocaine;Fisherjumpedbailandwasafugitivefor10years;inthemeantime(justa  fewmonthsbeforehisrearrest)policehaddestroyedtheevidence.SupremeCourt  holdsthat,despitetherequestforaccesstothesubstanceinadiscoverymotionbefore  Fisherabsconded,thecircumstancesdonotsatisfythe badfaithrequirementof  Arizonav._Youngblood_(1988)488U.S.51.Becausethetestsindicatedthesubstance  wascocaineandtherewasnoreasontobelievethatitwas materialexculpatory  evidence,thefailuretopreservetheevidencedidnotreflectbadfaith. 3gg݌(#(# Ќ   _TuTBATSONT#um#T_   " 3 "   3n2?B3  0    Johnsonv.California(2004)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.1833.ToparaphraseSherlock  Holmes,Johnsonprovedtobe thedogthatdidntbarkthisTerm.Johnsonwas   supposedtoresolvewhetherCalifornias stronglikelihoodformulationofaprima ! faciecaseunderWheeler(requiringtheprosecutortoofferraceneutralexplanations " forthecontestedperemptorychallenges)wasinconsistentwith_Batson_s reasonable # inferencestandardforaprimafaciecase.ButinsteadtheSupremeCourtdismisses $  certiorarionjurisdictionalgroundthatthereisno finaljudgment.Itwaspossible %!! that,onremandfromCaliforniaSupremeCourt,theCaliforniaappellatecourtmight &"" reverseJohnsonsconvictiononothergrounds(notreachedinitsoriginalopinion), '## eliminatingnecessityforresolutionofthe_Batson_Ԁclaim.(U.S.SupremeCourtnotes ($$ that,ifCaliforniaappellatecourtaffirmsonremandandCaliforniaSupremeCourt )%% deniesreview,Johnsoncanagainseekcertiorari.InAug.2004,theCalifornia *&& appellatecourtdidaffirmonremand,andapetitionforreviewiscurrentlypending.) 3nDn݌+''(#(# Ќ  UUXuX JURYINSTRUCTIONS   X#ut#X" 3"   3;u2?B3  0    See_Middleton_Ԁv._McNeil_(2004)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.1830(statecourtnot   unreasonableinfindinginstructionalerrorcuredbyotherinstructions),discussed  under HABEASCORPUS. 3;uhu݌(#(# Ќ  YY [u[PLEAS[#uXw#[    " 3"   3w2?B3  0    Iowav.Tovar(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.1379.Intakingapleafroman   unrepresenteddefendant,acourtisnotrequiredtoexpresslyadvisehimthat,in   waivinghisrighttoassistanceofcounselinconnectionwithhisdecisiontoplead,   hemaybeoverlooking aviabledefensetothechargeandwill losetheopportunity   toobtainanindependentopiniononwhether,underthefactsandapplicablelaw,it   iswisetopleadguilty.Awaiverofrighttocounselmustbeknowingandvoluntary.   Theopinionindicatesthat,inadditiontotherighttocounsel,thecourtshouldadvise  adefendantofthenatureofthechargesandtherangeofallowablepunishments.(Of  course,mostofthoseadvisementsarerequiredanywayunder_Boykin_,evenifa  defendantdoeshavecounsel).Statesarefreetoadoptadditionaladvisement  requirementsasamatterofstatelaw,buttheSixthAmendmentdoesnotmandatethe  specificadvisementsprescribedbytheIowaSupremeCourt. 3ww݌(#(# Ќ  u CAPITALPUNISHMENT #ui}#  " 3"   3}2?B3  0    See HABEASCORPUS,infra,fordiscussionsofthefollowingcases: 3}~݌(#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;~0  2?B3  0` (#(#  _Tennard_Ԁv.Dretke(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2562(restandardsfor  reviewofrestrictionsonjurorsconsiderationof lowintelligenceormental  retardationevidenceunderPenryv.Lynaugh). ;~݌` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;р0  2?B3  0` (#(#  Schirov.Summerlin(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2519(Ringv.Arizonanot  retroactiveonfederalhabeasreview). ;р݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;.0  2?B3  0` (#(#  Beardv.Banks(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2504(Millsv.Marylandnot ! retroactiveonfederalhabeasreview). ;.[݌"` (#` (# Ќ  u HABEASCORPUSu  $  0  Exhaustion &(""(#(# " 3"   3-2?B3  0    Baldwinv.Reese(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.1347.SupremeCourtreinforces (,$$ necessityofexplicit federalizationofclaimsthroughoutthestateappealorhabeas ),%% process(especiallyinanypetitiontothestateshighestcourt)inordertopreserveand *,&&  exhaustthoseclaimsforlaterfederalhabeasreview.Thebrieforpetitiontothe +,'' statesupremecourtmustmakethefederalbasisfortheclaimexplicit;itisnotenough  thatthelowercourtopinion(whichwaspresumablybeforethehighercourt)  explicitlyframedtheissueasafederalone.Referencesto ineffectiveassistanceof  counselinpetitiontoOregonSupremeCourtwerenotsufficienttoalertstatecourt  thatpetitionerwasraisingclaimunderSixthAmendment(ratherthanunder  comparableprovisionsofOregonConstitution).(Majorityopiniondoesnotaddress   whetherreferencetoastatestandardwhichwas,inallrespects,identicaltothe   federalstandardmightbeconsidered adequatetopresentthecorrespondingfederal   claim,becausethatissuewasnotraisedinlowercourts.But,obviously,inabsence   ofmoreguidanceonthatissue,itwouldbefoolhardyforcounseltoassumethat   referencestoCaliforniaauthoritiesemployingthesamestandardasafederaldoctrine   willbesufficienttoexhaustthefederalclaim.#X#ԀBriefsandpetitionsshouldexplicitly   citetofederalconstitutionalprovisionsand,whereverpossible,U.S.SupremeCourt   andotherfederalcasesapplyingthoseprovisions.) 3-Z݌ (#(# Ќ  0  ProceduralDefault (#(# " 3"   3Ҍ2?B3  0    Banksv._Dretke_(2004)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.1256.See BRADY&  DISCOVERY,supra,forBankssubstantiveholdingfindingBradyviolation.In  reachingthemeritsoftheBradyclaim,SupremeCourtunderscoresrelationship  betweenprosecutorialmisconductand causeexcusingastate proceduraldefault.  FifthCircuithadfoundproceduraldefaultbecause,thoughBankshadattemptedto  raiseaBradyclaiminhisstatepostconvictionpetition,hedidnotpresentthecrucial  evidencesupportingthatclaim(thestatessuppressionofkeywitnessroleaspaid  policeinformant)instatecourt.SupremeCourtfinds causeexcusingthatdefault  becausethestatehadcontinuedtostonewallandsuppressthatinformationoverthe  courseofthestatepostconvictionproceedings.󀀀Inparticular,initsanswertoBanks  statepostconviction,thestatehadmadeagenericdenialofthepetitionsallegations  thatthewitnesswasaninformantandhadfalselyassertedthatthestatehadalready   disclosedallexculpatoryevidence. Bankswasentitledtotreattheprosecutors ! submissionsastruthfulandcouldnotbefaultedforfailingtodiscoverandpresent " thisevidenceduringthestateproceeding. 3Ҍ݌#(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32?B3  0    _Dretke_Ԁv._Haley_(2004)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.1847.SupremeCourtdeclinesto % ! decidewhether actualinnocenceexceptionto proceduraldefaultbarappliesto &!"  constitutionalclaimschallengingnoncapitalsentencingerror(aconcededlackof '"# afactualbasisforHaleys habitualoffendersentence)andremandstoFifthCircuit. (#$ Beforereachingunresolvedissueofavailabilityof actualinnocenceexception, )$% federalcourtmustfirstconsiderall alternativegroundsforrelief(suchas *%& ineffectiveassistanceclaimwhich,ifsuccessful,wouldexcusethedefault) that +&' mightobviateneedtoreachtheactualinnocencequestion. 3/݌(#(# Ќ  0  TreatmentofProSePetitions (#(# " 3"   32?B3  0    _Pliler_Ԁv.Ford(2004)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.2441.Federalhabeascourthasnoduty  toadviseaprosepetitionerofthecomplicatedmechanismforcuringa mixed   petition(containingbothexhaustedandunexhaustedclaims)withoutrunningafoul   ofthe_AEDPA_Ԁstatuteoflimitations.Ifapetitionerdismisseshistimelymixed   petitionwhileheexhaustshisremainingclaims,AEDPAdeadlineislikelytohaverun   bytimehereturnstofederalcourtwithafullyexhaustedpetition.NinthCircuithad    requireddistrictcourttoadvisepetitionerofoptionof:(1)filinganamendedpetition   limitedtotheexhaustedclaims;(2)askingthedistrictcourtto staythatpetition   pendingexhaustionoftheremainingclaims;(3)goingbacktostatecourtandfiling   anexhaustionpetition;and(4)afterexhaustion,filinganewamendedpetitionin   federalcourt,addingbackinthepreviouslyexhaustedclaims.ButSupremeCourt   holdsthatfederalcourtsarenotrequiredtogivesuchdetailedproceduraladviceto  prosepetitioners. Requiringdistrictcourtstoadviseaproselitigantinsucha  mannerwouldunderminedistrictjudgesroleasimpartial_decisionmakers_.Also,  Courtrefusestoforceuponjudges thepotentiallyburdensome,timeconsuming,and  factintensivetaskofmakingacasespecificinvestigationofwhether_AEDPA_  limitationsperiodhasrunorislikelytorunbytimepetitionerreturnstofederalcourt. 3֘݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32?B3  0    Castrov.UnitedStates(2003)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.786.Incontrastto_Pliler_,  SupremeCourtdoesrequireafederalcourttotakespecialcare!andtogivethepro  sepetitionerspecificadvisements!before_recharacterizing_Ԁapleadingfiledunderthe  wrongprocedureasa28U.S.C.XX#XXXXC##XXb#Ԁ2255petition(thecounterparttoXX#XXXX##XX #Ԁ2254forfederal  prisoners).Thecourt mustnotifythepetitionerthatitintendsto_recharacterize_Ԁthe  pleading,warnthelitigantthatthis_recharcterization_ԀmeansthatanysubsequentXX#XXXX##XX#  2255motionwillbesubjecttotherestrictionsonsecondorsuccessivemotions,and   providethelitigantanopportunitytowithdrawthemotionortoamenditsothatit ! containsalltheXX#XXXX&##XXE#Ԁ2255claimshebelieveshehas. 3,݌"(#(# Ќ    Certificatesof_Appealability_  $  0  EchoinglastTermsMillerElv._Cockrell_(2003)537U.S.222,thereweretwo &!" reversalsofFifthCircuitdecisionsdenyingCertificatesof_Appealability_Ԁ(_COA_s)to '"# habeaspetitionerschallengingTexascapitalconvictions.(#$(#(# " 3"   32?B3  0    _Tennard_Ԁv._Dretke_(2004)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.2562.Petitionerentitledto_COA_ *%& onclaimthatTexascapitalsentencingschemeprovided constitutionallyinadequate +&' vehicle...forjurorstogiveeffecttohisevidenceoflowintelligence.Supreme  CourtfindsFifthCircuits thresholdtestfor screeningclaimsunder_Penry_Ԁv.  _Lynaugh_(1989)492U.S.302( itsownrestrictiveglosson_Penry_ԀI)iserroneous.   Areasonablejuristcouldconcludethatthejurymightwellhavegiven_Tennard_slow  IQaggravatingeffect,ratherthanmitigatingeffect,inlightofinstructionsand  prosecutorsargument.Hence,_Tennard_Ԁwasentitledto_COA_. 3F݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3_2?B3  0    Banksv._Dretke_(2004)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.1256.Inadditiontoitsholdings   excusingproceduraldefaultandreversingdeathpenaltyforBradyviolation(see    BRADY&DISCOVERYand HABEASCORPUS:ProceduralDefault,supra),   CourtalsoholdsthatFifthCircuitshouldhavegranted_COA_Ԁregardingaseparate   guiltphaseBradyclaiminvolvingadifferentwitness.(Specificissuefor_COA_Ԁis   whetherevidencedevelopedduringhabeasevidentiaryhearingshouldbetreatedas   withinscopeoforiginalhabeaspleadingunderRule15(b)ofFederalRulesofCivil   Procedure.) 3_݌(#(# Ќ  0  _Teague_/Retroactivity (#(# " 3"   32?B3  0    _Schiro_Ԁv._Summerlin_(2004)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.2519.Ringv.Arizona!  requiringjurydeterminationofaggravatingfactorsnecessityforimpositionofdeath  penalty!doesnotrepresenta watershedruleofcriminalprocedure.Therefore,this  newrulecannotbeappliedretroactivelyonfederalhabeas. 3%݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32?B3  0    Beardv.Banks(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2504.Millsv.Maryland(1988)486  U.S.367!holdingthatstatemaynotrequirepenaltyphasejurorstodisregard  mitigatingevidencewhichtheydontfindunanimously!wasnot dictatedbyprior  precedentandconsequentlyconstituteda newruleforTeaguepurposes.Majority  alsoholdsthatMillsdoesnotcomewithinTeaguesexceptionfor watershedrules  ofcriminalprocedures.Consequently,TeaguebarredretroactiveapplicationofMills   toacasewhichbecamefinalondirectreviewpriortothatdecision. 3ɶ݌!(#(# Ќ  0  AEDPAStandardofReview #(#(# 0  AgainthisTerm,theCourtsummarilyreversedseveralfederalcircuitdecisions(two % ! fromtheNinthCircuit&twofromtheSixth)whichhadgrantedhabeasrelieftostate &!" prisoners.Eachofthesepercuriamdecisionsheldthatthefederalcourthadgranted '"# insufficientdeferencetothestatecourtsundertheAEDPAstandardofreview(28 (#$ U.S.C.XX#XXXXN##XXm#Ԁ2254(d)):)$%(#(# " 3"   32?B3  0    _Middleton_Ԁv._McNeil_(2004)___U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.1830.󀀀NinthCircuit failedto +&' giveappropriatedeferencetothe[California]courtsdecisionthatanerrorinthe  imperfectselfdefenseinstructionswascuredbyotherinstructionsandby  prosecutorsargument.Trialcourthaddefined imminentperilintermsofhow  matterswouldappeartoa reasonableperson.ContrarytoNinthCircuitview,  Californiaappellatecourt didnotunreasonablyapplyfederallawinconcludingthat  therewasno reasonablelikelihoodjurorsweremisled,becauseotherinstructions   correctlyreferredto actualbutunreasonablebeliefinthenecessitytodefendagainst   imminentperil.Perhapsmostdisturbingly,SupremeCourtfindsnothing    unreasonableinCaliforniascourtrelianceonprosecutorsargumentashelping   curedefectininstructions.SupremeCourtcharacterizestheinstructionsas atworst   ambiguousbecausetheywereinternallyinconsistentandassertsthat aprosecutors   argumentthatresolvesanambiguityinfavorofthedefendantcanbeproperly   consideredas _ clarif[ying_ ]anambiguousjurycharge. 3-݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   32?B3  0    Yarboroughv.Gentry(2003)___U.S.___,124_ S.Ct_ .1.AnotherreversalofNinth  CircuithabeasrelieftoaCaliforniadefendant.NinthCircuithadfoundineffective  assistanceofcounselonthegroundthatdefensecounsels perfunctoryand   ineffectualclosingargumentfailedtohighlightwhatthefederalcourtviewedas  keydefectsinprosecutioncase.SupremeCourtholdsthatCaliforniaappellatecourt  wasntunreasonableinfindingnoconstitutionaldeficiencyincounselsargument.   Theissuescounselomittedwerenotsoclearlymorepersuasivethanthosehe  discussedthattheiromissioncanonlybeattributedtoanprofessionalerrorof  constitutionalmagnitude.Again,_ AEDPA_ ԀstandarddrivesSupremeCourtopinion.   Judicialreviewofadefenseattorneyssummationisthereforehighlydeferential!  anddoublydeferentialwhenitisconductedthroughthelensoffederalhabeas.  (Emphasisadded.) 3@݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32?B3  0    Mitchellv._ Esparza_ (2003)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.7.ReversalofaSixthCircuit  decisionoverturninganOhiodeathsentence.SixthCircuithadheldthatthe   indictmentsfailuretochargeexplicitlythatEsparzawasthe principaloffenderin ! themurder(asrequiredforcapitalmurderunderOhiolaw)andthefailuretoinstruct " juryonthatdefinitionwerenotsusceptibletoharmlesserroranalysis.Esparzawas # theonlypersonchargedinthemurder,and therewasnoevidence...thatanyone $  otherthan[Esparza]wasinvolvedinthecrime.SupremeCourtconcludesthat,in %!! viewofitsdecisionsapplyingharmlesserroranalysistovariousotherconstitutional &"" errors(e.g.,omissionofelementfrominstructions(Neder)),Ohiocourtwasnot '##  objectivelyunreasonableinfindingnoreversibleerror. Afederalcourtmaynot ($$ overruleastatecourtforsimplyholdingadifferentviewfromitsownwhenthe )%% precedentfromthisCourtis,atbest,ambiguous.\ 3݌*&&(#(# Ќ  _ \]\" 3"   3b2?B3  0    \]_  +'' " 3"   3#2?B3  0    Hollandv.Jackson(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2736.Tenneeseecourtsrejection  ofineffectiveassistanceclaimwasnot contrarytoor unreasonableapplication  ofStrickland#Â#Ԁv.Washington. TheSixthCircuiterredinfindingthestatecourts  applicationofStrickland#D#unreasonableonthebasisofevidencenotproperlybefore  thestatecourt.TheTennesseepostconvictioncourtshadfound nosatisfactory  reasongivenforthedefendantsfailuretolocatethiswitnessduringthe7yearssince   theconviction.DistrictcourtandSixthCircuit,nonetheless,hadimproperlyrelied   onthatevidencewithoutconductinganyinquiryintothepetitionerslackofdiligence   inpresentingit.SixthCircuitalsoincorrectlyreadTennesseecourtsopinionas   applyingapreponderancetesttoStrickland#,#prejudiceprong.SupremeCourtfinds   thattheTennesseecourtproperlyrecitedStrickland## reasonableprobability   prejudicestandardandthatits preponderancereferencesconcerneddistinctquestion   ofpetitionersburdenofproofofallegations. 3#P݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3M2?B3  0    SeealsoYarboroughv.Alvarado(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2140(statecourt  not unreasonableinfailingtoconsider ageandinexperienceindetermining  Mirandacustody),discussedunder CONFESSIONS.(Yarboroughwasnota  summaryreversal,butwasdecidedafterfullbriefingandargument.) 3Mz݌(#(# Ќ  0  TheTerrorTrilogy(EnemyCombatants,etc.) (#(# " 3"   32?B3  0    Rasulv.Bush(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2686.Foreignnationals,heldasalleged   enemycombatants,atU.S.baseatGuantanamoBay,Cuba,detainees,heldmay  obtainfederalhabeasreviewoflegalityoftheirdetentions. 3݌(#(# Ќ  " 3 "   32?B3  0    Hamdiv.Rumsfeld(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2633.AU.S.citizenseized  abroad(allegedlycapturedonAfghanbattlefield)andbeingheldinU.S.,without  criminalcharges,asanallegedly enemycombatantcouldseekfederalhabeas  reviewtochallengethebasisofthatdetention.PluralitydoesfindCongressional   authorizationfor enemycombatantdetentions,evenofcitizens,inthepostSept.11 ! legislationauthorizingPresidenttouse allnecessaryforceagainstthoseassociated " withtheterroristattacks.But,inJusticeOConnorsmemorablephrase,theCourt # cautions thatastateofwarisnotablankcheckforthePresidentwhenitcomesto $  therightsoftheNationscitizens.[CitingYoungstownSheet&TubeCo.,the1952 % !  steelseizurecase.]FourthCircuitappliedtoolenientastandardinacceptinga &!" shortconclusionarydeclarationbyaDefenseDept.officialasdispositiveproofofthe '"# legalityofthedetentionwithoutaffordingHamdianopportunitytocontestthe (#$ governmentsshowing.Dueprocessrequiresthatacitizendetainedasanenemy )$% combatantmustbegivenaccesstocounsel,noticeofthefactualbasisforthat *%& classification,ameaningfulopportunitytocontesttheassertedfactualbasisbeforea +&' neutral_ decisionmaker_ .(Justices_ Souter_ Ԁand_ Ginsburg_ Ԁfindnostatutoryauthorityfor  thedetention,butconcurinthedispositionremandingthecasetotheFourthCircuit.  JusticesScaliaandStevenswouldgofurther:Theymaintainthatthegovernmentmay  notdetainacitizenasaputative enemycombatant;absentanexplicitCongressional  suspensionofhabeascorpus,thegovernmentmusteitherchargehimwithtreasonor  someothercrimeorreleasehim.) 3݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3!"   3S2?B3  0    _ Rumsfeld_ Ԁv._ Padilla_ (2004)(2004)___U.S.___,124_ S.Ct_ .2711.Courtdoesnot   reachmeritsoflegalityof enemycombatantdetentionofU.S.citizenarrestedon   U.S.soil(OHareAirport),because_ Padilla_ shabeaspetitionwasfiledinthewrong   district(NewYork,ratherthanSouthCarolinawherehewasbeingheldinaNavy   brig).TheNewYorkfederalcourthadnojurisdictionoverthecommanderofthat   brig,who(astheofficialhavingimmediatephysicalcustodyover_ Padilla_ )wasthe   onlyproperrespondent. 3S݌ (#(# Ќ    ***  Bu0   SEQUELS&OTHERCOMINGATTRACTIONS....#uw# (#(# " 3""   32?B3  0    Sonsof_ Blakely_ . UnitedStatesv.Booker&UnitedStatesv._ Fanfan_ ,Nos.04104  &04105#/#.Applicabilityof_ Blakely_ tothefederalsentencingguidelines,including  theappropriateremedyiftheguidelinesarefoundunconstitutional. 3J݌(#(# Ќ  " 3#"   32?B3  0      TheReturnofMillerEl(_ Batson_ ). MillerElv._ Dretke_ ,No.039659.InMiller  Elv._ Cockrell_ (2003)537U.S.222,theSupremeCourtheldthattheFifthCircuithad  erredindenyingaCertificateof_ Appealability_ Ԁtopursuea_ Batson_ claim.Thoughthe  Courtsdiscussedtheunderlyingclaimwithinthecontextoftherelativelylow   thresholdshowingfora_ COA_ ,theopinionimpliedthatthe_ Batson_ claimappeared  strongonthemerits.Onremand,theFifthCircuitgranteda_ COA_ Ԁasordered.Butthe   Circuitdidnttakethehint(iftherewasone)andultimatelydeniedthe_ Batson_ claim ! onthemerits.TheSupremeCourthasnowgrantedcert.onthemerits. 3݌"(#(# Ќ  " 3$"   32?B3  0    Habeas! StaysofMixedPetition^s^. Rhinesv.Weber,No.039046.Authorityof $  afederalhabeascorpuscourtto stayproceedingsona mixed(i.e.,partially %!! exhausted)habeaspetition,whilethepetitionerexhauststheremainingclaimsinstate &"" court,inordertoensurethat,whenhereturnstofederalcourt,hispetitionwillnotbe '## timebarredunder_ AEDPA_ Ԁstatuteoflimitations.(Theavailabilityofa stay ($$ procedureofsomesortin mixedpetitionsituationswasalsotheunderlyingproblem )%% in_ Pliler_ Ԁv.Ford(discussedin HABEASCORPUSabove).ButtheissueinPliler *&& waswhetheracourtmustadviseapetitionerofthe stayoption,andthemajority +'' opiniondidnotaddress theproprietyofthisstayandabeyanceprocedure.) 3݌(#(# Ќ  " 3%"   32?B3  0    Habeas!_ AEDPA_ ԀStandardofReview/DeathPenalty_._. ``Brownv.Payton,No.03  1039.NinthCircuitheld catchallmitigationinstructioninCaliforniacapitaltrial  failedtoclearlyinformjurorsofrelevanceofpostoffensemitigatingfactors.  preventedconsiderationofpostoffensemitigatingevidence.Thestatehasframed   questiononcertiorariaswhethertheNinthCircuitdecisionmisappliedtheXX#XXXXj##XX#Ԁ2254(d)   standardofreview(i.e.,whethertheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsdecisionwas    objectivelyunreasonable).. 3݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3&"   32?B3  0    Deathpenalty!juveniles. 󀀀Roperv.Simmons,No.03633.Constitutionalityof   executingminorsundertheEighthAmendment. 3݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3'"   312?B3  0    Deathpenalty!lesseroffenseinstructionsa/ab.bWaiver&proceduraldefault. 󀀀Howell   v.Mississippi,No.039560.Originalcert.petitionraisedBeckv.Alabamaclaimre   refusaloflesserincludedoffenseinstructionsinacapitalmurdertrial.ButSupreme   Courthasorderedbriefingonwhetherthefederalconstitutionalclaimwasproperly   raisedintheMississippiSupremeCourt. 31^݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3("   32?B3  0    Searches. Illinoisv.Caballes,No.03923.Whetheruseofadrugsniffingdog   duringatrafficstoprequirea reasonable,articulablesuspicion. 3 ݌(#(# Ќ  " 3)"   3Q2?B3  0    Ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel. Floridav.Nixon,No.03931.Whetherdefense  counselsconcessionofguiltduringguiltphaseofcapitaltrialnecessarilyconstituted  ineffectiveassistance,despitetheconcessionsputativeroleaspartofstrategyfor  avoidingdeathpenalty. 3Q~݌(#(# Ќ  " 3*"   3q2?B3  0    Appellateprocess!righttocounsel. Kowalskiv.Tesmer,No.03407.  Constitutionalityofdenyingappointedcounseltoindigentdefendantsfor    discretionaryappealfollowingaguiltyplea.(InMichigan,thereisnoappealas ! ofrightfollowingaguiltyplea.Subjecttocertainexceptions,Michiganlawdoesnot " provideappointedcounselona discretionarypostpleaappeal.)